I wasn't really arguing that, it might have seemed that way, but that was my fault for explaining my argument better. I still have this problem and hate that... I'm beginning to think I haven't improved in arguing ideas because my brain either can't or won't let me get better at the skill.

Biology and evolutionary defined practices can become outdated.

What I'm talking about is more the subconscious wants that a person will do. For instance, fight or flight.

And note I do realize there are arguments against this idea as well. However most give examples where fighting would be useless, and flight is not an option, thus we must improvise (for instance "the Life of Pi", a boy fighting a tiger leads to a free lunch for the tiger, and trying to run leaves the boy in the ocean and dead anyway too)
or in instances where the "threat" isn't life threatening, a dog meeting another dog and being inquisitive, even though the other dog could be considered a "threat".

I guess I'm arguing that if biology still helps us with life threatening problems in our lives, why can't it still influence our small preferences as well?

Edit: Also, I am not arguing that this should be used to say that women are somehow lesser to a man, it was more about the idea for why there may be gender discrepancies in certain roles and jobs.

However, with that thought, I'm also done for the day with this forum as well, to much volatile components mixing here._________________The Angry Asshat.

Well, not just physical differences, but the fact that in just about every known culture women on average are more inclined to love children, cry more easily to emotional situations, be less aggressive and more cooperative, be more sexually submissive, etc., etc.

Maybe that's because almost every known culture has spent hundreds, if not thousands of years teaching women that they have to be submissive and consequently teaching men that they have to be aggressive and non-emotional.

That's not biology, that's thousands of years of prejudice and brainwashing that we might actually be able to put behind us if people stop calling it "biology".

Well, not just physical differences, but the fact that in just about every known culture women on average are more inclined to love children, cry more easily to emotional situations, be less aggressive and more cooperative, be more sexually submissive, etc., etc.

Maybe that's because almost every known culture has spent hundreds, if not thousands of years teaching women that they have to be submissive and consequently teaching men that they have to be aggressive and non-emotional.

That's not biology, that's thousands of years of prejudice and brainwashing that we might actually be able to put behind us if people stop calling it "biology".

Not to mention, that's just every culture YOU know about diagram, which apparently seems to be limited to the western "modern" culture.

For example, in matrilineal and matrilocal societies such as the Navajo, women owned and controlled wealth including dwellings, food supplies, tools, livestock, and other resources.
In a great many indigenous societies, women made decisions that affected the survival and well-being of their communities. Women and men played different yet complementary roles, exercising power over aspects of tribal life for which they were uniquely responsible. In some tribes, such as the Tohono O’odham and the Yaqui (Yoeme), women controlled the use of community resources such as food or they oversaw the preservation of their culture.

I believe that it would have been better, to say, your new knowledge is in conflict with your old knowledge, it is up to you to decide Which is true.

I understand your point. You are trying to discuss the disagreement in a way that sounds unbiased. Xanthe is not interested in sounding unbiased. She is confident that her view is true. It would have been really out of character for her to pretend she thinks Tomey's viewpoint is as valid as Fembook's.

Furthermore, in this case, her "bias" is completetly justified, because the "old knowledge" being referenced was written before questions about the source of gender roles were ever asked. Tomey's opinions are exactly assumptions, just as Xanthe describes them.

Rothide wrote:

Here she basically said that biology, one of the main reasons our species continued to today, suddenly has no effect in modern society views.

The third panel shows Fembook claiming that gender roles are social constructs, based on conditioning. Tomey argues that gender roles are based in biology. Xanthe is not disregarding Biology (the science). She is condemning the claim that biology is a sufficient explanation for gender roles.

Rothide wrote:

For example:The Red Dress Effect

I have no difficulty accepting that this is biological. I also have no difficulty in pointing out that this has nothing to do with gender roles. I think you would find it difficult finding an even vaguely scholarly article that claims there is a biological basis for, "Women should do the housework."

Or from the other direction: We can try to extend the red dress thing into the sort of gendered expectation of behaviour Fembook is talking about. Something like, "Women shouldn't wear red in public because it doth enflame the passions of men." The biological fact that men find red arousing exists, but it has virtually nothing to do with the socially coercive structure built up around it._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

As for new knowledge vs old knowledge why does it have to be either/or? Why not find a way to harmonize them? Nature and Nurture both have their place.

It has to be either/or because the two claims are diametrically opposed to one another. One of the knowledges is true, and one of them is false. We should accept ideas that have merit, and reject those that do not. For example, it is not true that diseases are spread both by germs and by miasma. One conclusion is the basis for pretty much all of medicine, and the other was a useless dead-end.

Why would you want to try to harmonize the two views, anyway? To claim gender roles are societally constructed is to argue for personal freedom. To claim it's all biological is to excuse systematic oppression. Why would anyone be interested in legitimizing injustice?_________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine